Mentioning discrimination is not trolling just because discrimination pushes emotional buttons. If you will look at the title of the thread you will notice that it contains the words: "age discrimination".

Making analogies helps understand a situation. In this particular case it ended up showing that you don't consider age discrimination to be on the same level with other forms of discrimination, to the point where you don't consider it illegal. To me it is on the same level. By making the analogy I wasn't trying to increase the emotional level of the discussion.

It is difficult to get the full meaning of what somebody is trying to say from just reading a post. In this case I can't tell if your reaction to her lying about her age is based on the concept of 'lying is bad at all times, regardless of the reasons behind the lie' or not.

My reasoning regarding the lie is this: what matters is if the actor can play the part. Because of that, the actual age of the actor should have no influence on the decision to hire the actor. So lying about one's age shouldn't matter at all, and therefore it can't be characterized as fraudulent.

So form my point of view that leaves the situation to this: a person made a profile on a website then wanted the information in one field removed. The website wouldn't allow her to remove the data herself, and the management wouldn't remove the data for her. Then they used her legal name, which they knew not from the data that she submitted for the profile, but from the credit card information, to get personal information on her from a website, and while they had agreed not to distribute this information, they did so anyway.

According to the motion that was filed, and in agreement with the statement of IMDb’s customer service manager (Giancarlo Cairella):

Quote:

IMDb limits the occasions when it claims it will share information outside of IMDb and Amazon to a narrow range of circumstances:
- Affiliated businesses to provide joint offers.
- Marketing agents to send advertisements.
- IMDb’s successors in interest, if IMDb is sold.
- Law enforcement, fraud protection, and court orders.
( Id.) IMDb confirms that “[o]ther than as set out above, you will always receive notice when information about you might go to third parties, and you will have an opportunity to choose not to share the information.”

She provided IMDb with credit-card billing information (the subscription was free to try, but she needed to provide the information) which they then gave to PrivateEye.com to find out her real date of birth. By this they violated the agreement. When they posted her real date of birth they violated her privacy. It doesn't matter who gave them the date of birth, they were not allowed to post it without her permission.

Making analogies helps understand a situation. In this particular case it ended up showing that you don't consider age discrimination to be on the same level with other forms of discrimination, to the point where you don't consider it illegal.

It's really not a matter of whether or not one "considers" it to be illegal. It is not illegal. That's not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.

Quote:

My reasoning regarding the lie is this: what matters is if the actor can play the part. Because of that, the actual age of the actor should have no influence on the decision to hire the actor. So lying about one's age shouldn't matter at all, and therefore it can't be characterized as fraudulent.

My dictionary defines "fraud" as:

Quote:

Deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

This was deceit (lying about her age) perpetrated for profit (gaining work she would not otherwise have been considered for), so it certainly seems to me to fit the definition of "fraud".

I quoted that because it's the only one that I found to be general. However:District of Columbia: Birth records become public 100 years after the date of birth.

Virginia: Birth records are public information 100 years after the date of the event

South Dakota: This site contains information from birth records with birth dates of over 100 years of age as required by South Dakota Codified Law 34-25-8

Connecticut: Access to birth records less than 100 years old is somewhat restricted. Only the people listed in the record, certain relatives, municipal employees, attorneys, and members of certain genealogical societies may receive certified copies of birth records less than 100 years old.

If you want, I can look for the rules in each of the states, but it even if the time limit isn't 100 for all states it would make sense that some time has to pass before access to the records is unrestricted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's really not a matter of whether or not one "considers" it to be illegal. It is not illegal. That's not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.

It shall not be unlawful for an employer, employment agency, or labor organization-

(1) to take any action otherwise prohibited under subsections (a), (b), (c), or (e) of this section where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business, or where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age, [...]

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it seems that there must be some common-sense reason why it's not illegal for a production company to reject 40 year olds if they're looking for someone to play the part of a 5-year-old child.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it seems that there must be some common-sense reason why it's not illegal for a production company to reject 40 year olds if they're looking for someone to play the part of a 5-year-old child.

That common sense reason would be because they cannot perform the requested duty, i.e. looking like a five year old child. The above mentioned act does not exempt an older person from being able to complete the paid for task. It only ensures that old people who are qualified to perform a job are not discriminated against.

And you don't think that it's unjust to reject an actress who looks 30 for the role of a 30 year old woman entirely based on her real age?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it seems that there must be some common-sense reason why it's not illegal for a production company to reject 40 year olds if they're looking for someone to play the part of a 5-year-old child.

Sarcasm?

I'm not clear on what point you are trying to make with this. The actress in question was looking for parts in 10+ year range, not 35+. She was going for roles where she can look the part, not roles fitting someone a fourth of her height.

Mentioning discrimination is not trolling just because discrimination pushes emotional buttons. If you will look at the title of the thread you will notice that it contains the words: "age discrimination".

Making analogies helps understand a situation. In this particular case it ended up showing that you don't consider age discrimination to be on the same level with other forms of discrimination, to the point where you don't consider it illegal. To me it is on the same level. By making the analogy I wasn't trying to increase the emotional level of the discussion.

It is difficult to get the full meaning of what somebody is trying to say from just reading a post. In this case I can't tell if your reaction to her lying about her age is based on the concept of 'lying is bad at all times, regardless of the reasons behind the lie' or not.

My reasoning regarding the lie is this: what matters is if the actor can play the part. Because of that, the actual age of the actor should have no influence on the decision to hire the actor. So lying about one's age shouldn't matter at all, and therefore it can't be characterized as fraudulent.

So form my point of view that leaves the situation to this: a person made a profile on a website then wanted the information in one field removed. The website wouldn't allow her to remove the data herself, and the management wouldn't remove the data for her. Then they used her legal name, which they knew not from the data that she submitted for the profile, but from the credit card information, to get personal information on her from a website, and while they had agreed not to distribute this information, they did so anyway.

According to the motion that was filed, and in agreement with the statement of IMDb’s customer service manager (Giancarlo Cairella):

She provided IMDb with credit-card billing information (the subscription was free to try, but she needed to provide the information) which they then gave to PrivateEye.com to find out her real date of birth. By this they violated the agreement. When they posted her real date of birth they violated her privacy. It doesn't matter who gave them the date of birth, they were not allowed to post it without her permission.

If, as everyone seems to agree, an IMDB pro account is something of a "busienss card" for the movie industry, providing deliberately false information is, at least arguably, fraudulent, and could have a negative effect on the usefulness (and business reputation) of the site. And as you quoted, they specifically reserve the right to share information for purposes of "Law enforcement, fraud protection, and court orders."

This was deceit (lying about her age) perpetrated for profit (gaining work she would not otherwise have been considered for), so it certainly seems to me to fit the definition of "fraud".

Mind you, that's also the definition of "Tuesday" in Hollywood. As is using any excuse to pare down the list of thousands of possible actors for any role, including age. But she knew that. I suspect she was hoping that IMDB, and, more importantly, the jury, didn't (and wouldn't) understand it all.

If, as everyone seems to agree, an IMDB pro account is something of a "busienss card" for the movie industry, providing deliberately false information is, at least arguably, fraudulent, and could have a negative effect on the usefulness (and business reputation) of the site. And as you quoted, they specifically reserve the right to share information for purposes of "Law enforcement, fraud protection, and court orders."

IMDb went looking for her date of birth when she requested the date that she submitted to be removed. They had no reason to go looking for her personal data, and she had the right to have the date that she gave removed.

The name that she uses is not her legal name. Do you also have a problem with that?

The mention of lying on a business card reminded me of something. It's completely silly, and I'm putting it under spoiler tags because it's an image. It has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic.

It's really not a matter of whether or not one "considers" it to be illegal. It is not illegal. That's not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.

My dictionary defines "fraud" as:

This was deceit (lying about her age) perpetrated for profit (gaining work she would not otherwise have been considered for), so it certainly seems to me to fit the definition of "fraud".

I've missed so much of the action in this thread that I'm not going to add very much here, but a few things:

1. Generally, age discrimination can be illegal where that discrimination is not for a bone fide reasons. Depending on the State, your mileage may vary on this. Discriminating against an actress because of her age likely isn't prohibited discrimination, but I've never seen a human rights or employment case where this was discussed (keep in mind I'm not an American lawyer, so I generally only watch for the big decisions).

2. Lying about her age would not meet any legal definition of "fraud" in this instance. At most, someone could argue that she came to court with "unclean hands" as courts in common law jurisdictions can apply that rule of equity when appropriate. I doubt this argument would succeed in any event.

IMDb went looking for her date of birth when she requested the date that she submitted to be removed. They had no reason to go looking for her personal data, and she had the right to have the date that she gave removed.

None of that changes the fact that she gave them false information with a dishonest intent, nor does it change the fact that your citation says they reserve the right to share information for purposes of fraud investigation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The name that she uses is not her legal name. Do you also have a problem with that?

The name she uses is, for all intents and purposes, a registered trademark, that she is required to use professionally by SAG. So no, I don't have any problem at all with that.

Would you not have a problem with someone using you as a reference when applying for a job, and expecting you to lie to help them get that job? Would you accept money for doing so?

I've missed so much of the action in this thread that I'm not going to add very much here, but a few things:

1. Generally, age discrimination can be illegal where that discrimination is not for a bone fide reasons. Depending on the State, your mileage may vary on this. Discriminating against an actress because of her age likely isn't prohibited discrimination, but I've never seen a human rights or employment case where this was discussed (keep in mind I'm not an American lawyer, so I generally only watch for the big decisions).

Nobody, including the plaintiff, has claimed that the age discrimination is illegal. That's the point, in fact. That she was trying to avoid something that's perfectly legal. (There are special exceptions to a lot of discrimination laws in the US for actors, or anyone who can be considered a "member of the case," especially in California. Go read up on some of the things Disneyland employees have to put up with some time.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

2. Lying about her age would not meet any legal definition of "fraud" in this instance. At most, someone could argue that she came to court with "unclean hands" as courts in common law jurisdictions can apply that rule of equity when appropriate. I doubt this argument would succeed in any event.

Nobody in their right mind would call it criminal fraud, but that's not the only form of fraud. Civil fraud is still withing the bounds of what the investigative web site reserves the right to share info over. The reason the plaintiff considered her read age on IMDB a big deal is that it's considerd by the industry to be something of a "calling card" - it's an official, professional presence. Lying it in is exactly the same as lying on a resume. Nobody's going to go to jail for it, but it is grounds to be fired (as happens, somethings quite spectaularly).

And IMDB certainly has a legitimate interest in fighting that kind of deceit. If they don't it damages their reputation in the industry, which directly damages their business. They're double winners here; not only did they win the legal case, they also established that their information is trustworthy. Don't think for a second that isn't the more important victory.